4 ms·

I don't understand why you would argue against using facts as the basis for debate. We're not giving proper weight to people's spiritual beliefs related to clim

by tc7 17y ago

I don't understand why you would argue against using facts as the basis for debate. We're not giving proper weight to people's spiritual beliefs related to climate change? "Don't use science to get around politics" sounds like a joke. I mean, really? "...their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns, forget about our ethical positions, ... forget about whether we are Christians or Buddists, no, none of that matters.’ The only thing that matters is that they’re holding a report from peer-reviewed science that in itself justifies their position. And it’s not just protesters who are hiding behind the authority of science. World leaders are doing it, too." What?! [sorry for the long quote, i'm working myself up :)] Maybe it's a joke, and it's just too early for me to get it.

gustavo_duarte 17y ago
At first I thought the same thing, but this guy is in the UK where the debate has moved on from 'whether global warming is real' to 'what to do about it'. He says: "However much we agree on the fundamentals of the physics of climate change, there are huge ethical, political and ideological differences that remain about what climate change signifies for society" So this is a different debate than what we have in the US, where we watch Fox News, deny global warming, and believe in creationism. His point is that yes, global warming is here, but we must choose how to handle it, what the trade offs are, what the priorities are, what to give up, and so on. These are political and ideological decisions which the science cannot make.
ilitirit 17y ago
> What?! He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context. Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy: Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years. Should we round up and isolate all green-eyed people? Should we kill them?
- tc7 17y ago
  That choice seems more obviously between two evils than the climate change issue. :) I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at all.
  - ilitirit 17y ago
    It's not about climate change - it's an analogy. It's not a choice between two evils either (you could round them up AND kill them). And of course you could propose a multitude of different solutions beside or in addition to these. My point was that science cannot be used to justify all the choices you make in cases like these.

by tc7 17y ago

gustavo_duarte 17y ago

At first I thought the same thing, but this guy is in the UK where the debate has moved on from 'whether global warming is real' to 'what to do about it'. He says: "However much we agree on the fundamentals of the physics of climate change, there are huge ethical, political and ideological differences that remain about what climate change signifies for society" So this is a different debate than what we have in the US, where we watch Fox News, deny global warming, and believe in creationism. His point is that yes, global warming is here, but we must choose how to handle it, what the trade offs are, what the priorities are, what to give up, and so on. These are political and ideological decisions which the science cannot make.

ilitirit 17y ago

> What?! He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context. Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy: Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years. Should we round up and isolate all green-eyed people? Should we kill them?

tc7 17y ago
That choice seems more obviously between two evils than the climate change issue. :) I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at all.
- ilitirit 17y ago
  It's not about climate change - it's an analogy. It's not a choice between two evils either (you could round them up AND kill them). And of course you could propose a multitude of different solutions beside or in addition to these. My point was that science cannot be used to justify all the choices you make in cases like these.